| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clause 28
Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 13, line 9, leave out from ("make") to ("to") in line 10 and insert ("arrangements").
Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 56.
Mr. Ingram: This large group of amendments makes fundamental changes to the efficiency or best value provisions in part V of the Bill. The changes give the board primacy for securing continuous improvement in the way in which board and police functions are exercised with regard to efficiency, effectiveness and economy. They give the board the lead in reviewing board and police functions. In respect of the police, the board is obliged to involve the Chief Constable in its deliberations.
The amendments confine the Secretary of State's role to one of default--exercisable only on receipt of an adverse report from the Comptroller and Auditor-General or Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.
These provisions were debated thoroughly and constructively in the other place and the Government believe that they now strike the right balance. We are grateful for the wide range of positive contributions made in the other place, which undoubtedly aided the Government to meet their commitment--made in this House--to place the board at the heart of the efficiency measures.
I commend the amendments to the House.
Mr. Öpik: Best value is important; the issue was raised by my colleagues in another place--and by my right hon. and hon. Friends in this place--at various stages of the Bill's progress. We thank Ministers for listening to the representations made by us and others on the matter. My colleague, Baroness Harris of Richmond, welcomed the amendment after the Government had listened to her concerns and to those that we had expressed in this place and on Second Reading in the Lords.
The setting of performance targets is clearly an integral part of the police planning process--indeed, it is a vital tool. The achievement of best value must be the product of close partnership between the board and the Chief Constable. We are grateful to the Government for realising that.
As was pointed out in another place, the amendments seem to be one of the more significant changes made by the Government. They have unquestionably improved the Bill.
Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 56 agreed to.
Clause 32
Lords amendment: No. 57, in page 16, line 40, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("be guided by").
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 88 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 92 and 106.
Mr. Howarth: This group of amendments deals predominantly with the code of ethics: they reinforce the code. Amendment No. 57 strengthens the requirements for police officers to adhere to the code of ethics. Not unreasonably, it changes "have regard to" to "be guided by".
Amendment No. 90 requires the board to review the steps taken by the Chief Constable to ensure that the code of ethics is brought to the attention of officers. Amendment No. 91 adjusts the wording of clause 50 to require the Secretary of State to reflect the code of ethics in discipline regulations
- so far as is practicable.
Amendment No. 89 makes the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland a consultee on the code of ethics. Amendment No. 92 is technical; it refers to conduct and discipline--not pensions, as suggested by the previous wording.
Amendment No. 106 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the principle of impartiality in carrying out his general duties under clause 66. That fulfils a commitment made in Committee in this place. I commend the amendments to the House.
Amendment (a) proposed by my hon. Friends would require that the code of ethics be used to make police officers aware of the contents of specified international instruments set out in the amendment. The current form of clause 50(1) makes the purpose of the code of ethics in relation to human rights as close as possible to Patten's recommendation 4. Amendment (a) would move the Bill away from Patten's recommendations.
As we have said, the problem with international human rights standards is lack of clarity, even with the documents mentioned. For example, the United Nations code of conduct for law enforcement officials refers to many other international instruments. I understand that none of the three instruments referred to has been formally ratified by the United Kingdom, or is legally binding in international law in the same way as a treaty would be. The documents constitute aspirational statements.
If particular, specific measures in those or other instruments would add value to the code of ethics. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will, no
doubt, comment on them when it is consulted on the code of ethics. In view of that information, I ask my hon. Friends not to press amendment (a) to a Division.
Mr. Öpik: I had hoped to speak after the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), because I am interested to hear what he has to say. However, I shall make a few brief comments in anticipation of what he might say.
Lords amendment No. 57 goes some way to allaying one of our key concerns. We had strongly pressed the Government to ensure that police officers comply with the code of ethics in carrying out their functions, rather than simply having regard to it, as originally stated in the Bill. The Government have changed the words "have regard to" to "be guided by"--a stronger form of words. That goes some way to reassuring us that the code of ethics will be properly heeded.
The protection of an individual's human rights is essential to the well-being of a democratic society. Indeed, that is the reason why we were sympathetic to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 26, which would have brought human rights considerations explicitly into the police training plan. People clearly want the police to protect their human rights from infringement by others and to respect their human rights in the exercise of the duties that they are paid to undertake. We have seen how the bad application or indiscriminate use of powers to limit a person's human rights has damaged and undermined the credibility of the police in some parts of the community. Stop and search, arrests, and house searches can lead to bad police relations with certain sections of the community, thereby making the effective policing of certain areas impossible.
With the best will in the world, the RUC has had problems winning credibility in some parts of the community. We have established many times in the Chamber that that is no reflection on the overwhelming majority of police officers who do a dangerous job extremely well in difficult circumstances. That is why we are pleased that the Government have chosen slightly to strengthen the phraseology by means of Lords amendment No. 57. The police must therefore be seen to follow and uphold the highest standards of international human rights. The fact that they are to be "guided by" those, rather than simply "having regard" to them, is an important step forward, and we thank Ministers for having listened.
Lords amendment No. 88 is consistent with the benefits of Lords amendment No. 57, because it will make police officers aware of their rights and obligations, under the Human Rights Act 1998, in relation to the provisions of the code of ethics. In drafting the code, the Chief Constable and the board must also have regard to the terms of the oath. We are pleased that Ministers have taken that important step forward.
On Lords amendment No. 89, it is good that the Equality Commission has been included among the bodies that will be consulted when preparing the code. The Equality Commission is made up of a tremendously professional and insightful group of individuals who do their job more because of their passion for the cause of equality than for payment or their salaries. For that reason, the Government have been wise to include their counsel in consultations.
I shall wait to hear what the hon. Member for Hull, North has to say about amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 88. While we were sympathetic to
amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 26, which was a simple reaffirmation of a strategic commitment to the human rights legislation that is now part of British law, we have some concern that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 88 goes a little further, and we remain to be convinced that the changes that the hon. Gentleman wants do not go a little too far.My understanding is that, if the circumstances permit, the codes of conduct included in amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 88 would probably be included in the work anyway, without such an explicit stipulation. We await what the hon. Member for Hull, North has to say, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |